Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Australia is not part of Europe, it's a moo point.

Don't have a cow, man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You may love your taxes been used in a feel good bleeding heart way, but there's many of us who object, in fact i would hazard a guess and say most of us would rather our taxes help Australians first.

I want my taxes to be spent wisely.

Australia has an obligation to help refugees. We signed the Convention and the Protocol and made a promise to help refugees wherever they come from. Helping refugees is one of the things that makes Australia a morally good country, something to be proud of and something deserving of international respect.

I'd rather there weren't any refugees at all, but while there are, we are honour-bound to help any that arrive in our territory, so we'd damn well find the best way to do that.

Instead, Australia has failed on its obligations by creating an arbitrary policy to imprison asylum seekers who arrive by boat in order to satisfy the irrational, xenophobic hatred of a large portion of its population. We've shown that we're a dishonourable, selfish nation of people.

Not only that, but we are also incredibly stupid. Our current policy on boat people is a huge drain on the Government's finances, and costs far more than it would to just process these people in the community.

This complaint about your taxes is transparent bullshit. If you cared about spending less money on asylum seekers then you would be against offshore detention, bribes for people smugglers, transferring asylum seekers to other countries, and the militarisation of Border Farce. Instead, you have willingly voted for a government who is diverting money away from helping Australians 'first' to give you the satisfaction of denying Centrelink payments to some brown people.

That is fucked up.

Your policy goes a very long way towards stopping economic migrants. That's it's real purpose.

 

[fromderinside]

Australia is not part of Europe, it's a moo point.

Don't have a cow, man.

Queri: can a European man cow an Auzie cow man? That would really moove me. Not enough to leave speederfundus though.

 

[angelo]

Interesting............. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/l...rt-refugees-committed-208344-crimes-2014-2015

 

[bigfield]

bigfield I wanted your definition, I know Wiki's and I know my own.

When I use terms such as 'refugee', 'asylum', and 'asylum seeker', I mean them in the way described by the references I gave. That is 'my' definition. Considering that you have not even explained why you want these definitions, there's nothing more to say.

I was a war refugee, then a political refugee, then an immigrant to Canada.

That's just one category: 'refugee'.

I would think

I wanted to know how it specifically affects Aussies, and from what dangers, wars , persecutions, or miserable fucking countries, the people wanting to get to Oz are escaping at present, and were escaping/migrating in the recent past.

is clear enough.

"I wanted to know how it specifically affects Aussies"

I have no idea what kind of answer you want to that. What do you refer to by 'it'?

As for the reasons for their arrivals: these are the main countries of origin: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iraq (civil war), Bhutan, Syria, Iran, Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

 

[bigfield]

Your policy goes a very long way towards stopping economic migrants. That's it's real purpose.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, Loren.

The majority of boat people are refugees: this was demonstrated by the figures produced by the Department of Immigration (which have now disappeared from the web since the switch to Border Force) where they showed that 90% of the boat people processed were granted asylum.

This imaginary flood of economic migrants is no different than Reagan's 'welfare queen' in the US: it's a fiction created by the right to stir up resentment in the populace and provide the political support required to forgo our obligations to people in need.

We are torturing the victims of war and persecution because of that lie.

 

[angelo]

Your policy goes a very long way towards stopping economic migrants. That's it's real purpose.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, Loren.

The majority of boat people are refugees: this was demonstrated by the figures produced by the Department of Immigration (which have now disappeared from the web since the switch to Border Force) where they showed that 90% of the boat people processed were granted asylum.

This imaginary flood of economic migrants is no different than Reagan's 'welfare queen' in the US: it's a fiction created by the right to stir up resentment in the populace and provide the political support required to forgo our obligations to people in need.

We are torturing the victims of war and persecution because of that lie.

You are very welcome to sponsor a few migrant families and provide them with housing and welfare you know since you feel so strongly about it!

 

[bigfield]

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, Loren.

The majority of boat people are refugees: this was demonstrated by the figures produced by the Department of Immigration (which have now disappeared from the web since the switch to Border Force) where they showed that 90% of the boat people processed were granted asylum.

This imaginary flood of economic migrants is no different than Reagan's 'welfare queen' in the US: it's a fiction created by the right to stir up resentment in the populace and provide the political support required to forgo our obligations to people in need.

We are torturing the victims of war and persecution because of that lie.

You are very welcome to sponsor a few migrant families and provide them with housing and welfare you know since you feel so strongly about it!

Refugees are not migrants.

Settling refugees in Australia only costs the average taxpayer a few dollars a year. It is extraordinarily cheap. It would be stupid for me to take on the sole financial burden for a family of refugees when that burden is spread out over millions of taxpayers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Are you distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants? Australia is taking in refugees.

Australia is not taking in refugees who arrive by boat; we are putting them in camps and refusing to grant them refuge in Australia simply because we don't like the way they got into our territory.

But thank you for your uninformed contribution.

Like most reports, there could be others that disagree but the Australian government figures show that refugees have been given asylum every year. However I only have the figures up to


See

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ry_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/RefugeeResettlement
See the table there which I have summarised as follows.
Since 2009 the number of refugee acceptance increased dramatically.

In 2012 to 2013 acceptances of asylum requests were a record 26,845. Out of a peak starting in 2009 to 2010 this was the hightest. The figure dropped in 2013 to 2014 to 18,718 (48 per cent acceptance rate)

I don’t have the figures for 2014 to 2015 Maybe you can show these and where they went.

However the amount of boats has I understand dropped. So this has hit the human trafficking business profits and reduced the deaths in that area.

Provided there are adequate facilities what is wrong with putting applicants in camps as described. There should be a means to prevent abuses of those that are there, either from guards or from each other.

Thank me for my contribution any time.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You are very welcome to sponsor a few migrant families and provide them with housing and welfare you know since you feel so strongly about it!

Refugees are not migrants.

Settling refugees in Australia only costs the average taxpayer a few dollars a year. It is extraordinarily cheap. It would be stupid for me to take on the sole financial burden for a family of refugees when that burden is spread out over millions of taxpayers.

What are the figures? Excluding processing costs this estimate was $700 million over a two year period. It may seem small vs the Australian population, but this could have been spent on Australia's poor and disadvantaged. Maybe other figures counter this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m/news-story/42acdd0e28d62aa605571e702b7d0bc3

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your policy goes a very long way towards stopping economic migrants. That's it's real purpose.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, Loren.

The majority of boat people are refugees: this was demonstrated by the figures produced by the Department of Immigration (which have now disappeared from the web since the switch to Border Force) where they showed that 90% of the boat people processed were granted asylum.

This imaginary flood of economic migrants is no different than Reagan's 'welfare queen' in the US: it's a fiction created by the right to stir up resentment in the populace and provide the political support required to forgo our obligations to people in need.

We are torturing the victims of war and persecution because of that lie.

There are some figures here
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...liamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’?
Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are subject to the same assessment criteria as all other asylum applicants. Past figures show that between 70 and 100 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country.
Also
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]

There is also information to suggest the majority of refugees did find employment

Trust my uninformed report was useful.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't have a cow, man.

Queri: can a European man cow an Auzie cow man? That would really moove me. Not enough to leave speederfundus though.

He would need to be in the Mooed.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't have a cow, man.

Queri: can a European man cow an Auzie cow man? That would really moove me. Not enough to leave speederfundus though.

He would need to be in the Mooed.

 

[bigfield]

Provided there are adequate facilities what is wrong with putting applicants in camps as described.

Firstly, there are not adequate facilities. Detainees are denied proper access to medical services, legal services, communications etc.

Secondly, if you can't see what is wrong with putting refugees in camps and denying them basic freedoms then you need your head examined.

 

[bigfield]

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, Loren.

The majority of boat people are refugees: this was demonstrated by the figures produced by the Department of Immigration (which have now disappeared from the web since the switch to Border Force) where they showed that 90% of the boat people processed were granted asylum.

This imaginary flood of economic migrants is no different than Reagan's 'welfare queen' in the US: it's a fiction created by the right to stir up resentment in the populace and provide the political support required to forgo our obligations to people in need.

We are torturing the victims of war and persecution because of that lie.

There are some figures here
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...liamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’?
Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are subject to the same assessment criteria as all other asylum applicants. Past figures show that between 70 and 100 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country.
Also
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]

There is also information to suggest the majority of refugees did find employment

Trust my uninformed report was useful.

No, it wasn't. You just copy-pasted a bunch of irrelevant statistics.

Even after a boat person is determined to be a refugee, Australia's new refugee policy does not permit them to be settled in Australia.

Even after we KNOW that a person has a valid claim for asylum, we still deny them.

Nothing can excuse that.

 

[angelo]

You are very welcome to sponsor a few migrant families and provide them with housing and welfare you know since you feel so strongly about it!

Refugees are not migrants.

Settling refugees in Australia only costs the average taxpayer a few dollars a year. It is extraordinarily cheap. It would be stupid for me to take on the sole financial burden for a family of refugees when that burden is spread out over millions of taxpayers.

So you're happy to burden taxpayers with your bleeding heart, feel good philosophy, but are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is!

 

[angelo]

Australia is not taking in refugees who arrive by boat; we are putting them in camps and refusing to grant them refuge in Australia simply because we don't like the way they got into our territory.

But thank you for your uninformed contribution.

Like most reports, there could be others that disagree but the Australian government figures show that refugees have been given asylum every year. However I only have the figures up to


See

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ry_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/RefugeeResettlement
See the table there which I have summarised as follows.
Since 2009 the number of refugee acceptance increased dramatically.

In 2012 to 2013 acceptances of asylum requests were a record 26,845. Out of a peak starting in 2009 to 2010 this was the hightest. The figure dropped in 2013 to 2014 to 18,718 (48 per cent acceptance rate)

I don’t have the figures for 2014 to 2015 Maybe you can show these and where they went.

However the amount of boats has I understand dropped. So this has hit the human trafficking business profits and reduced the deaths in that area.

Provided there are adequate facilities what is wrong with putting applicants in camps as described. There should be a means to prevent abuses of those that are there, either from guards or from each other.

Thank me for my contribution any time.

In fact the boats have been stopped entirely. Hold it, one boat tried, but it was sent back from whence it came.
A policy the Labor party said would never work has been a huge success, leaving places for genuine refugees, not interlopers.

 

[bigfield]

Refugees are not migrants.

Settling refugees in Australia only costs the average taxpayer a few dollars a year. It is extraordinarily cheap. It would be stupid for me to take on the sole financial burden for a family of refugees when that burden is spread out over millions of taxpayers.

So you're happy to burden taxpayers with your bleeding heart, feel good philosophy, but are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is!

Holy shit that is stupid.

First of all, how the fuck can I pay for housing for the refugees when they are not even allowed into the country? Gee, maybe I should ring Border Farce and tell them to send some through.

Secondly, it would actually be SAVING PEOPLE MONEY. Why don't you explain why you think taxpayers should be burdened instead with the higher cost of maintaining our offshore detention and resettlement programs. Why are you happy to burden taxpayers with your cruel, xenophobic, ignorant philosophy?

And while we're at it: tell us how much money you donate to helping the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled and other needy Australians. If you're so concerned about helping Australians first, then you better explain to us why you aren't sponsoring them with housing, therapy and carers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are some figures here
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...liamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’?
Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are subject to the same assessment criteria as all other asylum applicants. Past figures show that between 70 and 100 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country.
Also
• only 17.9 per cent of the 13,507 humanitarian grants in 2008–09 were protection visas granted under the onshore component
• due to another increase in boat arrivals, 32.9 per cent of the 13,770 grants in 2009–10 were to onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals). In 2011–12, 51.2 per cent of the 13,759 grants were to onshore applicants
• in 2012–13 the Government made a decision to raise the Humanitarian Program intake to 20,000 with the majority of the places allocated to offshore refugees. As a result, only 37.5 per cent of the available visas were granted to onshore (air and boat) applicants and
• in 2013–14 the intake returned to 13,750 and only 20 per cent of the grants went to onshore (air and boat) applicants.[46]

There is also information to suggest the majority of refugees did find employment

Trust my uninformed report was useful.

No, it wasn't. You just copy-pasted a bunch of irrelevant statistics.

Even after a boat person is determined to be a refugee, Australia's new refugee policy does not permit them to be settled in Australia.

Even after we KNOW that a person has a valid claim for asylum, we still deny them.

Nothing can excuse that.

You're a bit vague but the statistics are not irrelevant but I am sure you are contending they are incomplete. I presume you mean if a claim is valid they are settled elsewhere. Can you supply valid statistics for those settled in Australia and those settled elsewhere.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you're happy to burden taxpayers with your bleeding heart, feel good philosophy, but are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is!

Holy shit that is stupid.

First of all, how the fuck can I pay for housing for the refugees when they are not even allowed into the country? Gee, maybe I should ring Border Farce and tell them to send some through.

Secondly, it would actually be SAVING PEOPLE MONEY. Why don't you explain why you think taxpayers should be burdened instead with the higher cost of maintaining our offshore detention and resettlement programs. Why are you happy to burden taxpayers with your cruel, xenophobic, ignorant philosophy?

And while we're at it: tell us how much money you donate to helping the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled and other needy Australians. If you're so concerned about helping Australians first, then you better explain to us why you aren't sponsoring them with housing, therapy and carers.

Re the last sentence this can come out of taxation. Regarding asylum seekers, the cost is high but Australia can only pay for so many to settle. Of course Cambodia's possibly not everyone's cup of tea. Im sure not many Muslims would fany joining its pig farming industry (currently threatened by cheaper imports from Thailand).

 

[whichphilosophy]

Provided there are adequate facilities what is wrong with putting applicants in camps as described.

Firstly, there are not adequate facilities. Detainees are denied proper access to medical services, legal services, communications etc.

Secondly, if you can't see what is wrong with putting refugees in camps and denying them basic freedoms then you need your head examined.

I said
Provided there are adequate facilities what is wrong with putting applicants in camps as described.
In 2013 the UNCHR did report that conditions were cramped and in some cases a lack of water. This would not be acceptable. Recent reports would be interesting. There is nothing wrong with putting asylum seekers into processing centres, but they should be able to accommodate the numbers coming in.

 

[bigfield]

No, it wasn't. You just copy-pasted a bunch of irrelevant statistics.

Even after a boat person is determined to be a refugee, Australia's new refugee policy does not permit them to be settled in Australia.

Even after we KNOW that a person has a valid claim for asylum, we still deny them.

Nothing can excuse that.

You're a bit vague but the statistics are not irrelevant but I am sure you are contending they are incomplete. I presume you mean if a claim is valid they are settled elsewhere. Can you supply valid statistics for those settled in Australia and those settled elsewhere.

The statistics you provided are irrelevant: none of the stats you provided relate to the boat people detained in offshore detention centres under Operation Sovereign Borders, none of whom have been resettled in Australia.